Details And Nuance In The Dartmouth/FIRE/College Republicans Collision

The contretemps between the campus Republican group at Dartmouth, the college, and the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education was discussed here a couple of days ago, using sources I thought sufficiently thorough. They weren’t nearly as thorough, however, as Ethics Alarms commenter Curmie, who performed a superb deep dive into the facts and competing narratives.

As you would expect with such careful research, his analysis is consequently more nuanced and fair than mine, though it reaches a conclusion regarding Dartmouth that is close enough to the Ethics Alarms version for horseshoes. I wish I had written the equivalent of Curmie’s analysis at the outset, but at least we have the fuller story now.

It’s too long for me to justify posting, but I’d rather send you to Curmie’s blog anyway: just click on this link: “Dartmouth Wins Three-Way Battle for Looking the Worst”

If you post your comments here, I promise to cross-post them on Curmie’s blog.

4 thoughts on “Details And Nuance In The Dartmouth/FIRE/College Republicans Collision

  1. Why is here a “sensitive content” warning when linking to Curmie’s blog from EA? Curmie takes strong stances, some with which I agree and others I don’t, but nothing he writes is offensive or “triggering,” though I suspect Curmie doesn’t suffer wimps very well.

    Otherwise, an excellent post.


    • I can answer that one. It’s voluntary on my part, largely because I not infrequently use… erm… language derived from the Anglo-Saxon.
      I once directed a play that suggested, obliquely, that in the unlikely event that God exists, he’s a grumpy old man who refuses to assist anyone in need. This at a Methodist college in the heart of the Bible Belt. No problem.
      But I did get into trouble for having student actors say “God dammit” onstage.

        • I taught Catholic high school for a year and a half. The first year I was given two sections of 9th grade religion. It was basically the Old Testament, which was essentially more English lit. as far as I was concerned (my other three sections for which I was actually qualified). The priests were so few and far between that they got to teach whatever they wanted and lay people were plugged in to teach religion. This was in the ’70s.

          While discussing the Israelites wandering in the desert and worshipping false gods whenever Moses would disappear to receive the Ten Commandments or otherwise commune with Yahweh, I was trying to make the point the rank-and-file Israelites had no idea where Moses had gone, and it was understandable they’d panic and revert back to worshipping golden calves and so forth. In my enthusiastic attempt to maintain the kids’ attention, I said, “The Israelites had no way of knowing what Moses was up to. They didn’t know if he’d gone behind a bush to take a leak, or what.” At the time I thought nothing of it. But a few days later I was called into Fr. Dennehy’s office and ‘fessed up when he asked me whether I’d really said that in class. He just shook his head sadly and said something along the lines of “Don’t do that again” and sent me on my way.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.